80th Annual Academy Awards
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8675
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
A few thoughts on the main argument:
1) Invoking the Tonys as model does nothing to win me over. I HATE that the Tonys have excluded the techies from the TV presentation, and especially the sneaky way they did it -- first separating them out to a PBS hour prior to the CBS telecast (which worked fine), but then having CBS swoop back in to do the whole three hours and cutting the designers cold. It may affect my opinion that I know one or two of those excluded as a result.
2) The notion that the tech awards are what cause the Oscars to be unpopular is bloody nonsense, for an obvious reason: they were giving out those same awards during all the golden ratings years (sometimes a few more, since up to 1967 black-and-white had separate categories for cinematography, art direction and costumes). If you're looking to pinpoint what's gone wrong, shouldn't you focus on something that's CHANGED? The far more obvious cuplrit is the infantilization of mainstream Hollywood product and the major studios' utter lack of interest in promoting and, ultimately, developing, grown-up films -- which leaves a major gap between what people have seen and what people who at least try to advocate for art will want to honor.
3) There have always been people -- especially critics, god help us -- who have complained about the tech awards and pushed for their exclusion. I hate the idea for various reasons. First, a show with only, what, the top eight awards?, would amount to sex without foreplay. Second, as the usually not-so-insightful Pete Hammond points out, the tech categories have done much to keep the Oscar pool lively during a time of too much conformity in the top slots. And third, key wins in minor categories have often provided dramatic foreshadowing of major results -- from Warren Beatty's famously (and correctly) saying whoever won costuming in 1981 would take best picture, to The Departed's victory in hotly contested editing last year showing the way to its ultimate best picture win. I'd hate to think of an Oscars without such ebb and flow...without it, you might as well have Larry King cover it like he did the Golden Globes this year.
4) I don't think many in the "we must get rid of techs" crowd are even especially sincere about wanting to improve the awards; they just don't like the show in general. It's reminiscent of what Buck Henry said about preview reactions for To Die For. According to him, many in the focus group argued the film should be cut...but after they were pressed, it became clear they didn't think any particular cuts would improve the film. Their stance was based simplyu on, they'd hated the film, and they just wished there'd been less of it.
5) Here's a dirty secret: the Academy powers that be have no desire to make the show any shorter. How do I know this? Because, back in my youth (one shared by several of us here), the show began at 10PM Eastern time, was scheduled to end at midnight, and was always over by c. 12:30 -- 2 1/2 hours maximum. (And, remember, they had those extra black-and-white categories) The decision to make the show go three-hours-plus is plainly geared toward selling more advertising time (there are also more ads per hour now, as there are throughout television). Does anyone really see them changing this for any reason?
1) Invoking the Tonys as model does nothing to win me over. I HATE that the Tonys have excluded the techies from the TV presentation, and especially the sneaky way they did it -- first separating them out to a PBS hour prior to the CBS telecast (which worked fine), but then having CBS swoop back in to do the whole three hours and cutting the designers cold. It may affect my opinion that I know one or two of those excluded as a result.
2) The notion that the tech awards are what cause the Oscars to be unpopular is bloody nonsense, for an obvious reason: they were giving out those same awards during all the golden ratings years (sometimes a few more, since up to 1967 black-and-white had separate categories for cinematography, art direction and costumes). If you're looking to pinpoint what's gone wrong, shouldn't you focus on something that's CHANGED? The far more obvious cuplrit is the infantilization of mainstream Hollywood product and the major studios' utter lack of interest in promoting and, ultimately, developing, grown-up films -- which leaves a major gap between what people have seen and what people who at least try to advocate for art will want to honor.
3) There have always been people -- especially critics, god help us -- who have complained about the tech awards and pushed for their exclusion. I hate the idea for various reasons. First, a show with only, what, the top eight awards?, would amount to sex without foreplay. Second, as the usually not-so-insightful Pete Hammond points out, the tech categories have done much to keep the Oscar pool lively during a time of too much conformity in the top slots. And third, key wins in minor categories have often provided dramatic foreshadowing of major results -- from Warren Beatty's famously (and correctly) saying whoever won costuming in 1981 would take best picture, to The Departed's victory in hotly contested editing last year showing the way to its ultimate best picture win. I'd hate to think of an Oscars without such ebb and flow...without it, you might as well have Larry King cover it like he did the Golden Globes this year.
4) I don't think many in the "we must get rid of techs" crowd are even especially sincere about wanting to improve the awards; they just don't like the show in general. It's reminiscent of what Buck Henry said about preview reactions for To Die For. According to him, many in the focus group argued the film should be cut...but after they were pressed, it became clear they didn't think any particular cuts would improve the film. Their stance was based simplyu on, they'd hated the film, and they just wished there'd been less of it.
5) Here's a dirty secret: the Academy powers that be have no desire to make the show any shorter. How do I know this? Because, back in my youth (one shared by several of us here), the show began at 10PM Eastern time, was scheduled to end at midnight, and was always over by c. 12:30 -- 2 1/2 hours maximum. (And, remember, they had those extra black-and-white categories) The decision to make the show go three-hours-plus is plainly geared toward selling more advertising time (there are also more ads per hour now, as there are throughout television). Does anyone really see them changing this for any reason?
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
I was no fan of Abigail Breslin last year, but I thought you were excessively cruel. And I don't mind people disliking performances. I may disagree, but even when i don't like a performance, an actor or a film, I don't make up cruel or inappropriate names for them. If I did, I probably would be calling the Coens film Faux Country for Old Men.Damien wrote:OscarGuy wrote:Most of us have gotten used to it. I don't particularly like it and I've made an issue of it before, but it won't do any good.
Oh come on, Wes, be real. You only get all huffy if it's someone you like who's being dissed (Whoopi, Hillary, Cotillard). You're perfectly fine with criticism if it's the Coens or George Bush or someone else you don't care.
I don't care if you hate something or someone or that you even refer to them as "goddamn cartoons". Cricitism is ONE thing. I just don't like when you attach grade school epithets to them because of your dislike.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
-
OscarGuy
- Site Admin
- Posts: 13668
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
- Location: Springfield, MO
- Contact:
You know what seems to be popular these days: How To shows. Discovery Channel and History channel are wildly popular from all accounts I've heard...what they might try to do is have a SERIES of programs leading up to the big night.
They really also should do more to promote who's going to be on the show. This year was only anomalous in the fact that it didn't drag out the presenters announcement. But other than Variety, previous years have never had mass marketing around those who are going to show. Plus, I hardly ever see any advertisement for the programs. And I don't know any of the people who actually presented at the ceremony that would have carried the "I must see them" mentality.
Or, do a montage explaining each category as Sonic has suggested in the past.
Of course, I'm entirely opposed to eliminating any awards from the presentation. That just seems so irresponsible. I don't like that the Tonys are doing that now. They just started that recently, because I remember when they gave them all out during the show.
But, really, the only possible way might be to start advertising on American Idol...
They really also should do more to promote who's going to be on the show. This year was only anomalous in the fact that it didn't drag out the presenters announcement. But other than Variety, previous years have never had mass marketing around those who are going to show. Plus, I hardly ever see any advertisement for the programs. And I don't know any of the people who actually presented at the ceremony that would have carried the "I must see them" mentality.
Or, do a montage explaining each category as Sonic has suggested in the past.
Of course, I'm entirely opposed to eliminating any awards from the presentation. That just seems so irresponsible. I don't like that the Tonys are doing that now. They just started that recently, because I remember when they gave them all out during the show.
But, really, the only possible way might be to start advertising on American Idol...
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Here's an idea: instead of the red carpet pre-show, for that first half-hour provide an insight into the technical categories, what a cinematographer does, what the art director does, what the visual effects people do, etc. And if ABC/AMPAS is worried this would bore people, have the movie stars themselves introduce the nominees and their process, for example, Daniel Day-Lewis interview Elswit, Marion Cotillard interview her make-up artists, Cate Blanchett interview her costume designer, etc.
"...it is the weak who are cruel, and...gentleness is only to be expected from the strong." - Leo Reston
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
"Cruelty might be very human, and it might be cultural, but it's not acceptable." - Jodie Foster
-
FilmFan720
- Emeritus
- Posts: 3650
- Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
- Location: Illinois
Sonic, I agree wholeheartedly with what you say. At lunch the following day, I had to explain to several co-workers what exactly Robert Boyle did. They were massively confused about Art Direction, even after watching the entire show. They need to do a better job of explaining their importance, just as the Tony Awards need to do with their categories. No one is less important than anyone else, and these awards shows need to acknowledge that.
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.
- Minor Myers, Jr.
-
Sonic Youth
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8008
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 8:35 pm
- Location: USA
I've said this for years. The problem isn't the technical awards themselves. One of the problems is that people don't understand or appreciate what the technical awards are for. If anyone didn't know what Robert Boyle was being honored for, I'm not sure the clip they showed would have illuminated all that much. All the seconds-long footage of Eddie Murphy's head covered with foam (for the Best Makeup category) are just token gestures. But when they have people onstage wearing the nominated costumes, as they did last year, that gives you a better idea of what's being nominated and why.
But the real problem is the haphazard presentation. Costume Design, then Animated Feature, then Makeup, then Visual Effects, then Art Direction, then Supporting Actor. Later, Sound Editing and Sound Mixing, then Actress, then Film Editing, then Foreign Language Film, then Song, then Cinematography, then Score. What the hell kind of programming is that? No rhyme or reason. Here's what you do. Present the technical awards in two blocks, Production (Costumes & Makeup, Art Direction & Cinematography with Supporting Actor or Actress in between) and Post-production (Sound, Score and Editing - Visual Effects sort of splits the difference.) Do the short films in another block, Foreign Language film, Animated Feature and Documentary Feature in another block, and before you get to the commercial do a Screenplay or Supporting category, a little piece of chocolate for the viewer who preserveres.
Song category. For a few years, they did something very bright: two and only two musical interludes. Three songs performed in succession, then the other two later in the show. This would have been the perfect year for such an arrangement. There's no reason why Enchanted's songs couldn't have been performend one-after-the-other. Or better still, just devote a segment to ALL FIVE musical numbers. Perform them all, one after the other while we at home compare and contrast, then conclude with announcing the winner. And keep the performers onstage as the envelope is being opened. I'd watch it, and anyone who doesn't want to will have a 15 minute break.
Of course, we know why AMPAS and ABC will never do this. It would mean fewer presenters, which I suppose they believe is what brings in the ratings in the first place.
There is one thing Gannis did to save time that no one seems to have noticed. He did away with the boring Best Picture presentations, in which a cast member comes onstage to introduce "clips" of each nominee, sometimes a scene but more often a montage of the film taken directly from the trailer. Good for him. But that makes the elimination of clips during the Best Picture presentation all the more regrettable.
But the real problem is the haphazard presentation. Costume Design, then Animated Feature, then Makeup, then Visual Effects, then Art Direction, then Supporting Actor. Later, Sound Editing and Sound Mixing, then Actress, then Film Editing, then Foreign Language Film, then Song, then Cinematography, then Score. What the hell kind of programming is that? No rhyme or reason. Here's what you do. Present the technical awards in two blocks, Production (Costumes & Makeup, Art Direction & Cinematography with Supporting Actor or Actress in between) and Post-production (Sound, Score and Editing - Visual Effects sort of splits the difference.) Do the short films in another block, Foreign Language film, Animated Feature and Documentary Feature in another block, and before you get to the commercial do a Screenplay or Supporting category, a little piece of chocolate for the viewer who preserveres.
Song category. For a few years, they did something very bright: two and only two musical interludes. Three songs performed in succession, then the other two later in the show. This would have been the perfect year for such an arrangement. There's no reason why Enchanted's songs couldn't have been performend one-after-the-other. Or better still, just devote a segment to ALL FIVE musical numbers. Perform them all, one after the other while we at home compare and contrast, then conclude with announcing the winner. And keep the performers onstage as the envelope is being opened. I'd watch it, and anyone who doesn't want to will have a 15 minute break.
Of course, we know why AMPAS and ABC will never do this. It would mean fewer presenters, which I suppose they believe is what brings in the ratings in the first place.
There is one thing Gannis did to save time that no one seems to have noticed. He did away with the boring Best Picture presentations, in which a cast member comes onstage to introduce "clips" of each nominee, sometimes a scene but more often a montage of the film taken directly from the trailer. Good for him. But that makes the elimination of clips during the Best Picture presentation all the more regrettable.
"What the hell?"
Win Butler
Win Butler
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
I totally disagree with this. I like watching the presentations for most of the technical categories -- seeing the original set and costume designs, hearing the scores, seeing how the visual effects were created -- and I think it's important that those artists receive that kind of showcase during the main ceremony.Big Magilla wrote:Hustler, I agree with your take, but in the interest of making the show snappier the technical awards should be presented pre-show as the article suggests and recapped on the main program the way they do it with the Tonys and other shows.
I almost actively dislike the way it's done on the Tonys -- like an afterthought. (I get why the Grammys do it -- with nine million categories, how could you not?) But with only twenty-something categories, the Academy should keep all the awards at the main telecast.
Other way Magilla, is mantaining these awards in the show by trying to recreate its presentation.Big Magilla wrote:Hustler, I agree with your take, but in the interest of making the show snappier the technical awards should be presented pre-show as the article suggests and recapped on the main program the way they do it with the Tonys and other shows.
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19377
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Respect isn´t just a song by Aretha franklin. It´s a concept and we´re trying to work on it.Damien wrote:OscarGuy wrote:Most of us have gotten used to it. I don't particularly like it and I've made an issue of it before, but it won't do any good.
Oh come on, Wes, be real. You only get all huffy if it's someone you like who's being dissed (Whoopi, Hillary, Cotillard). You're perfectly fine with criticism if it's the Coens or George Bush or someone else you don't care.
Uh! I totally disagree frendos!Big Magilla wrote:The L.A. Times has an article by Patrick Goldstein on how to fix he Oscar broadcast that actually makes sense.
http://theenvelope.latimes.com/awards....9.story
According to that article the technical awards -- sound editing, sound mixing, visual effects, makeup and costume design -- have to go.
No way! Com´on guys! These are the Oscars. Either you like them or you leave them.
I like to watch ALL the awards. No matter if they so popular for the media or not. We don´t need to revert the nature of the celebration just to gain rating.
What I saw this year is lack of creativity. The musical numbers sucked. The presenters were boring. Same faces as always, with same stupid jokes.
The main concept of this year would have been: The past glorys of celluloid are coming back to the Kodak to celebrate 80 years of cinema.
None of them was present.
So, Mr. Cates, thank you for the same old boring story, it´s time for you to leave. It´s time for some talented producer to bring back the joy of celebration, respecting the structure of this ceremony.
Oh come on, Wes, be real. You only get all huffy if it's someone you like who's being dissed (Whoopi, Hillary, Cotillard). You're perfectly fine with criticism if it's the Coens or George Bush or someone else you don't care.OscarGuy wrote:Most of us have gotten used to it. I don't particularly like it and I've made an issue of it before, but it won't do any good.
"Y'know, that's one of the things I like about Mitt Romney. He's been consistent since he changed his mind." -- Christine O'Donnell